Wikisource:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikisource
(Redirected from Wikisource:Vandalism)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Administrators' noticeboard
This is a discussion page for coordinating and discussing administrative tasks on Wikisource. Although its target audience is administrators, any user is welcome to leave a message or join the discussion here. This is also the place to report vandalism or request an administrator's help.
  • Please make your comments concise. Editors and administrators are less likely to pay attention to long diatribes.
  • This is not the place for general discussion. For that, see the community discussion page.
  • Administrators please use template {{closed}} to identify completed discussions that can be archived
Report abuse of editing privileges: Admin noticeboard | Open proxies
Wikisource snapshot

No. of pages = 2,414,866
No. of articles = 677,518
No. of files = 23,141
No. of edits = 7,936,158


No. of pages in Main = 400,420
No. of pages in Page: = 1,662,505
No. validated in Page: = 366,985
No. proofread in Page: = 533,242
No. not proofread in Page: = 597,028
No. problematic in Page: = 29,190
No. of validated works = 2,872
No. of proofread only works = 1,708
No. of pages in Main
with transclusions = 191,497
% transcluded pages in Main = 47.82
Σ pages in Main


No. of users = 2,859,028
No. of active users = 297
No. of group:autopatrolled = 456
No. in group:sysop = 29
No. in group:bureaucrat = 3
No. in group:bot = 21


Checkuser requests[edit]

  • Wikisource:checkuser policy
  • At this point of time, English Wikisource has no checkusers and requests need to undertaken by stewards
    • it would be expected that requests on authentic users would be discussed on this wiki prior to progressing to stewards
    • requests by administrators for identification and blocking of IP ranges to manage spambots and longer term nuisance-only editing can be progressed directly to the stewards
    • requests for checkuser

Bureaucrat requests[edit]

Page (un)protection requests[edit]

Other[edit]

Resource Loader issue needs outside guidance[edit]

The more I read up on this RL change and the subsequent actions needed (or taken?), the more I get the feeling some of my approach to site wide & gadget .js/.css organization over the months is going to behind this week's latest problems. If that winds up to be the case, then I'm truly, truly sorry for that. Let me try to document those steps and the reasoning behind them in hopes someone (@Krinkle:) can made sense of our current state and put us on the right path post RL change(s).

Originally, we not only had a ridiculous amount of scripting and .css definitions in our primary site-wide MediaWiki files to begin with but also called a number of stand-alone .js/.css files within those primary MediaWiki files called unnecessarily in addition to calls to various sub-scripts on top of any User: selected gadgets being called -- some of which eventually became default loaded per concensus, etc..

A simple depiction of the key files mentioned minus any Gadgets basically went like this...

Over several months with help of other folks, I began to consolidate and/or eliminate as much scripting calls as I could -- creating optional Gadgets whenever possible -- and tried much the same for the .css class definitions. The rationale behind doing this can be found in several places, most importantly: Wikipedia. The premise to keep the MediaWiki site-wide files "lean" goes like this....

 /**
 * Keep code in MediaWiki:Common.js to a minimum as it is unconditionally
 * loaded for all users on every wiki page. If possible create a gadget that is
 * enabled by default instead of adding it here (since gadgets are fully
 * optimized ResourceLoader modules with possibility to add dependencies etc.)
 *
 * Since Common.js isn't a gadget, there is no place to declare its
 * dependencies, so we have to lazy load them with mw.loader.using on demand and
 * then execute the rest in the callback. In most cases these dependencies will
 * be loaded (or loading) already and the callback will not be delayed. In case a
 * dependency hasn't arrived yet it'll make sure those are loaded before this.
 */

The result of that effort as it stands today can be depicted basically like this....

The predominant change in order to move towards the previously cited rationale & approach is that the bulk of the scripting and class definitions now reside in the default-enabled Site gadget files, MediaWiki:Gadget-Site.js & MediaWiki:Gadget-Site.css. And by no means is the current state the desired final approach; its been a work in progress as time allowed over several months.

Obviously, now with the recent change to Gadgets and ResourceLoader, either the existing rationale or my attempts (or both) are no longer in harmony -- if they ever were. In my view, we need someone like Krinkle (or maybe the collective minds of Wikitech-l?) to take the time and attention needed to come in here and straighten all this out -- one way or the other. My gut tells me THAT will resolve the reported loss of one thing or another post-RL change(s). Again, if I'm right about my actions exacerbating problems for other, I apologize and take full responsibility. -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I've made a few minor changes in addition to yours that hopefully make things work a bit more like you intended. I'm happy to provide further guidance but that probably works better for a more specific need or question. Perhaps bring it up on Wikitech-l or on IRC so we I can help you move forward with any unresolved issues. Krinkle (talk) 21:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I need help reviewing a Global RFC[edit]

Dear admins, I am preparing a Global Request for Comments about financial support for admins that might be relevant for you .

Can you please review the draft and give me some feedback about how to improve it? Thank you.

MassMessage sent by Micru on 18:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Please delete all "not proofread" pages from Index:History of Oregon volume 1.djvu[edit]

Would a kind admin please delete all the pages marked blue/"problematic" or pink/"not proofread" at this work? I have now overwritten the file with a much better scan from Internet Archive, which has a much better OCR layer. Those pages are a mess. (Please note, there are a number of pages that have been proofread, so don't delete them all!) Thank you, -Pete (talk) 22:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Donebillinghurst sDrewth 04:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

upcoming admin confirmations[edit]

Hi,

Just flagging that I'll be on vacation with no internet access for a couple of weeks from Saturday, so I will not be in a position to close the June admin confirmations on 1 July.

I was late to close the May ones, and the community jumped in and closed them, start the new discussions, and left me to do the archiving etc. Happy to do the same this month if you want -- do what you do, and I'll clean up any loose ends when I'm back online in mid-July.

Cheers all, love your work!

Hesperian 01:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I have closed four as confirmred, though left AdamBMorgan's as it will not be confirmed. I will leave that to a 'crat who can then request removal to stewards at m:SRP. There are no July confirmations to list. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:58, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Requested.— Mpaa (talk) 17:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
And done.— Mpaa (talk) 19:47, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Gadgetised GoogleOCR tool[edit]

Hi to all. From a discussion in one of our help spaces, it was identified that there was an "improved/better" OCR tool around and in use (GoogleOCR). I have quickly added this as a gadget in the development section, and just poked some text at it. We should assess that it is a better tool, and if it is then we probably should retire the old tool. The text at MediaWiki:Gadget-GoogleOCR could do with some improvement and probably the insertion of file:GoogleOcr toolbar button.png. I will look at it again when I have some quality time. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:03, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

From https://wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Google_OCR:
It is used on Wikisources in languages with scripts that are not supported by the standard Tesseract OCR system. It should not be used where that system can be used instead, as there is a limit to the number of requests we can make against Google's services.
as a note.— Mpaa (talk) 23:51, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
As answered by @Samwilson: in a Wikisource global chat, the limit for Google Cloud Vision API (i.e., our Google OCR button) is 1800 requests per minute. This limit can only be crossed by mass-scale ocr by multiple users simultaneously. So I don't think we need to be concerned about this "limit". Hrishikes (talk) 01:14, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
@Billinghurst, @Mpaa, @Hrishikes: Yup, it's true. We only once got over three requests per minute in the last month. If we want to use Google in place of phetools, we can do so and probably not worry about excessive usage (given that it's still just an ad hoc thing; if we wanted to automate whole works being run though it that might require more discussion, although would probably also be fine). Sam Wilson 01:33, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
If we are running whole works through, I would guess that we would limit these, either as priority, or rate-limiting, as they are hardly urgent. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:00, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: yeah, and even if we did we probably wouldn't be doing it all that often. We could do a 500 page work every day, for instance, and not get close to the limits. :) I'm in favour of retiring the old gadget. Sam Wilson 02:10, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
As pywikibot runs pages sequentially, as long as we run with some due consideration it shouldn't particularly matter for the tool, as the bot usually runs at slower rates than pt0 or pt:1 anyway. Just make sure that we aren't running multiple parallel high-rate bot sessions. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:10, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Promotional article[edit]

The article Godrej Alive is clearly created for promotion of real estate. This is visible from its language. Nor it is anything of importance that is needed on this project anyway. I think it should be deleted. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 08:06, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

We don't require notification here. If you think that it is spammy, please mark it with{{delete|spam}}. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks for informing. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 21:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

m:Community health initiative/Per-user page, namespace, and upload blocking[edit]

The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team is currently in development of partial blocks. Sitewide blocks are not always the appropriate response to some situations. Smaller, more tactical blocks may defuse situations while retaining constructive contributors. The goal of this project is to give wiki administrators a more robust set of tools to be able to better respond to different user conflict situations.

Please discuss this project at m:Talk:Community health initiative/Per user page, namespace, and upload blocking.

Alert to the admin community. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:03, 31 July 2018 (UTC)